Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for going beyond that by stating the deletion is permanent and, importantly, that audience memberships are removed as a cascade effect — a non-obvious consequence an agent could not read off the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, zero filler, with the destructive nature and the cascade effect front-loaded. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, annotation-backed destructive tool with no output schema, this covers what an agent needs: permanence, item limit, and the membership side effect. Failure/partial-success behavior is the only gap, and it is minor here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single ids parameter has 100% schema coverage, including the con_xxx format and the 1–100 bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'up to 100 contacts' merely restates maxItems without adding format or validation detail beyond it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb (permanently delete) plus resource (contacts) plus scope (up to 100) and a stated side effect (audience memberships). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular delete-contact by the 'bulk' framing and the 100-item bound, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The word 'Permanently' signals this is an irreversible operation, so the agent can infer caution is warranted, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over delete-contact or bulk-remove-contacts-from-audience, and no stated prerequisite like confirming the contact IDs first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.